The Human Foot: A Masterpiece of Irreducible Complexity

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Jonathan Moore is a board-certified podiatric physician and surgeon. Moore also holds Master’s degrees in Medical Education and Biblical Studies and a Ph.D. from Amridge University in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Biblical Archaeology.]

The imagery of a primate evolving step-by-step into a modern bipedal human, as popularized by sources in the media, has become a cultural icon for the theory of evolution.¹ This gradual progression from quadruped to biped² suggests that the structure of the human foot was a result of incremental changes over time. However, the image of the “March of Progress” illustration oversimplifies and distorts the scientific complexities surrounding the fossil record and evolutionary biology.

Some evolutionary critics like Nathan Lents have argued for this depiction of quadrupedalism to bipedalism based on their claims that the human foot and ankle are poorly designed, suggesting that features like the multiple bones in the foot and paired leg bones above the ankle are inefficient or unnecessary.³ Yet, these allegations that the foot is poorly designed with unnecessary components overlook some crucial aspects of the foot’s complexity.

The human foot is a biomechanical marvel, unparalleled in its complexity, adaptability, and precision. It integrates 26 bones, 33 joints, over 100 muscles, tendons, and ligaments, as well as thousands of proprioceptive sensors, to perform a unique combination of tasks. These include weight-bearing, shock absorption, propulsion, and fine-tuned balance adjustments during bipedal locomotion. Its irreducible complexity, a concept central to the argument for intelligent design (and which will be discussed later in this article), challenges the notion that the foot could have arisen through incremental evolutionary modifications.

The Functionality of the Foot

The human foot—an anatomical wonder—is a structure of unparalleled complexity and precision. The human foot’s remarkable design enables it to adapt dynamically throughout each step. Quoting Leonardo da Vinci, who famously called the foot “a masterpiece of engineering and a work of art,” Stuart Burgess emphasizes that unbiased studies of the foot consistently recognize its “excellent design.” Modern researchers similarly observe its “nearly effortless human gait” and the synchronized function of its structures, which are “superbly constructed for ambulation.”⁴ Clinical studies also underscore the intricate interdependence of the foot’s anatomical and functional components, illustrating how its design is optimized for bipedal locomotion.

Arch Structure

The medial and lateral longitudinal arches and the transverse arch form a suspension system that distributes weight, absorbs impact, and stores elastic energy. The foot’s interconnecting arches are critical to its functionality. Burgess⁵ compares these to Roman arches, which use compressive forces to maintain stability. The arches are supported by segmented bones, including keystone bones that uphold the structure, short ligaments that tie adjacent bones together, and longer ligaments, such as the spring ligament, that span multiple bones.

Arches effectively spread weight across multiple points, minimizing stress on any single bone or joint, thereby reducing injury risks and enhancing endurance. Furthermore, the arch compresses slightly upon impact, dispersing forces that would otherwise travel up the kinetic chain, causing stress to the knees, hips, and spine. The human foot’s ability to store and release elastic energy further underscores its specialization. Acting as natural springs, the arches store energy during the stance phase of gait and release it during propulsion, significantly increasing efficiency and reducing metabolic cost. Ker, et al.⁶ explored the foot’s capacity to store elastic energy through its arches. Their findings revealed that this energy contributes up to 17% of the total energy expenditure during running, emphasizing the biomechanical precision necessary for efficient movement.

Muscles and Tendons

The muscle-tendon systems showcase a delicate balance of strength and agility. These systems are vital for locomotion, balance, and adaptability, with each element contributing to the foot’s ability to handle the diverse demands of human movement. Components like the Achilles tendon, intrinsic and extrinsic muscles, and the plantar aponeurosis all work in concert, demonstrating a level of coordination that highlights the foot’s exceptional functionality.

The Achilles tendon, the strongest in the human body, is a cornerstone of the foot’s design. Connecting the calf muscles to the heel bone, it plays a critical role in propulsion, shock absorption, and energy efficiency. During the stance phase of gait,⁷ the tendon stretches to store elastic energy, which is released during push-off to propel the body forward. This energy-efficient mechanism reduces metabolic costs and enables high-performance activities like jumping and sprinting. Additionally, the Achilles tendon distributes impact forces, protecting the skeletal system from damage. Its indispensable role is evident in the profound impairment caused by weakness or injury to the tendon.

The intrinsic and extrinsic muscles of the foot further enhance its functionality. Intrinsic muscles, located entirely within the foot, stabilize the arches and provide fine motor control, preventing collapse and ensuring proper toe alignment during locomotion. Extrinsic muscles start outside a specific body part but act on it. Extrinsic foot muscles originate in the lower leg and generate the primary forces needed for movement, including dorsiflexion, plantarflexion, inversion, and eversion. The seamless coordination of these muscle groups ensures stability, adaptability, and propulsion.

The plantar aponeurosis, a dense band of connective tissue along the sole, is another vital component of the foot’s architecture. Acting as a tensioned cable, it supports the arches, maintains foot stability, and stores elastic energy during gait. It also facilitates the efficient transfer of forces between the heel and forefoot during propulsion. Working in tandem with the intrinsic muscles, the plantar aponeurosis optimizes energy efficiency and prevents arch collapse. Its failure or underdevelopment would render the foot incapable of performing its critical functions.

The coordination of the foot’s muscle-tendon systems reflects an intricate design where every component is essential for locomotion, balance, and adaptability. The Achilles tendon, plantar aponeurosis, and intrinsic and extrinsic muscles must function in perfect harmony to achieve efficient propulsion, shock absorption, and stability—inexplicable if the result of evolution.

Proprioceptive Sensors

An additional hallmark of the human foot’s sophistication is its advanced proprioceptive system,⁸ often referred to as the body’s “sixth sense.” Proprioception enables the perception of body position and movement without relying on visual input, and the foot plays a critical role in maintaining balance and stability during bipedal locomotion. Thousands of sensory receptors in the foot provide real-time feedback about pressure, motion, and balance, allowing for rapid adjustments to environmental changes.

The proprioceptive system integrates input from multiple sources. Skin receptors detect changes in pressure and texture, offering crucial information about ground surfaces. Joint receptors monitor the alignment and position of bones, ensuring proper function, while muscle spindles sense changes in muscle length and tension, enabling dynamic adjustments during movement. These signals are processed by the brain to coordinate precise, efficient motion. For example, when navigating uneven terrain, proprioceptive feedback allows the foot to adjust its position instantly, reducing the risk of falls and injuries. This sensory system, finely tuned for balance and adaptation, exemplifies the extraordinary complexity and functionality of the human foot.

Dual Functionality of the Human Foot: Stability and Adaptability

One of the most remarkable aspects of the human foot is its ability to transition seamlessly between two opposing roles: a rigid lever for propulsion and a flexible adapter for uneven terrain.⁹ As the heel strikes the ground, the subtalar joint between the ankle and heel bones everts slightly, loosening the foot and ankle to absorb impact and adapt to uneven surfaces. When the foot rolls forward, the subtalar joint inverts, locking the foot bones into a more rigid structure. This rigidity, supported by ligaments, tendons, and the plantar fascia, stabilizes the foot to effectively propel the body forward. The intricate interplay of bones, ligaments, tendons, and muscles enables this functionality.

During the push-off phase of walking or running, the human foot transforms into a rigid lever, efficiently transferring force to propel the body forward. This process relies on several biomechanical features working in concert.¹⁰ This rigid lever function is critical for high-force activities such as running, jumping, and climbing.

While rigidity is crucial for propulsion, the foot’s flexibility allows it to adapt to uneven terrain, ensuring balance and stability. This adaptability is largely facilitated by the subtalar joint, which enables inversion and eversion of the foot, working together with the talus, calcaneus, ligaments, and proprioceptive sensors.¹¹ This adaptability is vital for navigating uneven surfaces, such as rocks and slopes during hiking.

Additionally, the foot maintains three-point contact with the ground for stability during standing and controlled movement. This intricate balance of stiffness and flexibility is achieved through precise muscular control and an extraordinary structural design, showcasing sophisticated engineering.

Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity, a concept introduced by biochemist Michael Behe,¹² describes systems where all components are simultaneously essential for function. If any part is removed or undeveloped, the entire system becomes nonfunctional. The human foot exemplifies this concept because its stability, mobility, and energy efficiency depend on the simultaneous operation of its bones, tendons, muscles, and ligaments.

Charles Darwin himself acknowledged the potential weakness of his theory when faced with systems of such interdependence: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”¹³ The foot meets this challenge head-on. Its intricate design defies evolutionary explanations because no transitional form could perform its essential functions, rendering intermediate stages maladaptive. Each of its systems is so intricately connected that removing or partially developing one would disrupt the entire mechanism causing pain, disability, and instability of the entire body.

The Rat Trap Comparison

The foot’s biomechanics mirror the precision seen in engineered systems, where interdependent parts work seamlessly together. The human foot’s functionality can be compared to a rat trap, where each component is essential for the system to work. Just as removing a single part of a rat trap—such as the spring or bar—renders it inoperative, disrupting any key structure of the foot compromises its overall performance. The interdependence of its components reflects the necessity of a fully integrated design for the foot to function effectively.

Components of Complexity

As the rat trap comparison conveys, a weakness in one system compromises the entire function of the foot, illustrating the necessity of this interdependent design. Below are a few additional examples of the ways in which the components of the foot rely on each other, as well as the consequences if one part should fail.

Arch Structure

The foot’s arches (medial longitudinal, lateral longitudinal, and transverse) rely on:

• Bone alignment (e.g., calcaneus, navicular, and first metatarsal form the medial arch)
• Soft tissues (e.g., plantar fascia, intrinsic foot muscles)
• Dynamic stabilization by muscles (e.g., tibialis posterior)

The arches of the foot require the interaction of structural and soft tissue components to maintain their shape and function.¹⁴ A failure in any one of these (e.g., flatfoot deformity due to tibialis posterior tendon dysfunction) collapses the arch, leading to issues such as plantar fasciitis, altered gait mechanics, and increased stress on the knees and hips.¹⁵

Propulsion Mechanism

Propulsion requires:

• Efficient lever formation by the big toe and metatarsals
• Force transmission via the Achilles tendon
• Arch rigidity during push-off (windlass mechanism)¹⁶

Loss of the big toe (hallux amputation) severely compromises balance and mobility, reducing walking efficiency and forcing compensatory gait patterns that stress other joints.¹⁷

Balance and Adaptation

Balance depends on:

• Proprioceptive feedback from the plantar surface
• Dynamic responses by intrinsic and extrinsic muscles
• Bone congruency for stable joint motion

Damage to sensory nerves (e.g., diabetic neuropathy) disrupts this feedback loop, leading to uncoordinated muscle activation and increased risk of falls.

Evolutionary explanations face insurmountable challenges in accounting for how such a highly integrated system could develop incrementally. For example, a partially formed Achilles tendon or plantar aponeurosis would fail to provide the necessary benefits for survival, offering no evolutionary advantage. The interdependence of these components points to a system that could only function as a whole, supporting the concept of irreducible complexity and intentional design.

Comparisons to Apes

Ape feet differ significantly from human feet in their structure and function. While ape feet are designed for arboreal movement,¹⁸ the human foot is uniquely structured to support bipedal locomotion, offering functional advantages that highlight its separate intricate design and specialization.

1. Big Toes: Apes have opposable big toes, which aid in grasping, while humans have non-opposable big toes aligned with the other toes to facilitate forward propulsion.
2. Arch System: Unlike the flexible feet of apes, the human foot features a rigid arch system that enables it to serve as a stable platform and an efficient mechanism to conserve energy for walking and running. The rigid arches and aligned toes of the human foot are maladaptive for climbing, offering no advantage in an arboreal environment.
3. Achilles Tendon: Another key distinction lies in the Achilles tendon, which in apes is shorter and less developed, reflecting their primary design for climbing.
4. Intrinsic Muscles: The intrinsic muscles of ape feet are also specialized for grasping, whereas the intrinsic muscles in human feet are designed to stabilize the arches, providing the structural support necessary for bipedal locomotion.
5. Plantar Aponeurosis: Apes lack the plantar aponeurosis—a critical component in humans that stiffens the foot during the push-off phase, enabling efficient propulsion and energy conservation.

Additionally, the dual functionality of human feet as rigid levers and flexible adapters is critical for human bipedal locomotion. These key differences set human feet apart from the flat, grasping feet of apes and other primates, emphasizing the disparities in function and purpose between bipedal and quadrupedal feet.

Transitional Gaps

Evolutionary supporters often cite fossils like Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) as a transitional example of the gradual progression from quadruped to biped. Australopithecus afarensis reveals a mix of arboreal and terrestrial traits, including a grasping, curved toe that is fundamentally different from the human foot’s propulsion-oriented structure. Though Australopithecus afarensis shares some joint similarities with humans, australopithecine fossils lack the anatomical structures necessary for efficient upright locomotion or evidence of even partially formed arches.

Holowka, et al.¹⁹ examined fossilized hominid feet to assess the reliability of interpretations about locomotion. The authors found that Homo habilis and Homo erectus fossils displayed features consistent with modern human walking, including a well-defined longitudinal arch and a human-like big toe.²⁰ The fact is, there are significant gaps rather than a smooth evolutionary continuum. The fossil record simply does not demonstrate intermediate traits indicating transitions between quadrupeds and bipeds.

If humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, transitional features, such as partially developed arches, Achilles tendons, or intermediate forms of the plantar aponeurosis, should be present in the fossil record. However, such fossils are conspicuously absent. The late Stephen Jay Gould observed: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”²¹

The absence of intermediate forms between the grasping, flexible primate foot and the rigid, arched human foot renders a gradual transition speculative, relying more on interpretation than on hard evidence. These observations suggest that the human foot’s bipedal design arose as a fully functional and integrated system, rather than through incremental adaptations.

Co-Option

Evolutionists face the challenge of explaining how gradual changes, such as the transition from a flat foot to an arched one, could provide intermediate benefits, particularly when early hominins required fully functional feet for survival. To address this significant problem in evolutionary theory, the concept of co-option was introduced.²² This idea suggests that pre-existing anatomical features evolved to serve new roles over time.²³ This concept attempts to argue how traits originally adapted for one purpose can be repurposed through natural selection to fulfill entirely different functions in response to changing environmental pressures or needs.

As biological and anatomical research advances, the challenges faced by the co-option explanation appear increasingly intractable, highlighting the sheer improbability of these intricate systems arising through gradual, unguided processes. Mutations, which are claimed to be the driving force behind the creation of new traits in evolutionary theory, are overwhelmingly deleterious or neutral, making them an unlikely source for the complex re-purposing required in co-option. Natural selection does not generate new traits or genes—it merely preserves traits that are already functional. It assumes that small, advantageous changes can accumulate over vast periods of time, but this process cannot explain the origin of entirely new structures or the genetic information required for co-option.²⁴

Challenges to Evolutionary Theories

Critical questions remain insufficiently answered by evolution advocates:

• What specific advantages would pre-adapted features of the foot serve in quadrupeds, and how could these features later evolve to benefit bipedalism?
• Why would evolution “store” partially formed or non-functional intermediate traits, when natural selection typically eliminates less fit structures?

Natural selection operates by retaining beneficial mutations, yet the likelihood of multiple, concurrent mutations affecting diverse structures in a way that enhances functionality is statistically negligible. Each mutation would need to provide an immediate survival advantage, yet incomplete or partially developed systems, such as a foot without fully integrated arches or coordinated muscle-tendon systems, fail to offer such benefits. Furthermore, the time required for any undirected process to generate such complexity far exceeds what is available in evolutionary timelines. The probabilistic barriers are insurmountable.

Similar insurmountable hurdles arise when attempting to invoke co-option to explain the development of irreducibly complex features. Genetic mutations predominantly affect isolated traits, making the coordinated changes required for the foot’s development extraordinarily difficult to achieve through random processes. Features such as the arches, aligned big toe, and robust Achilles tendon cannot develop incrementally without rendering the foot non-functional or maladaptive in the interim. Intermediate forms without fully developed arches would result in collapsed feet, compromising bipedal locomotion. A partially developed Achilles tendon would not provide the energy efficiency crucial for walking and running, offering no selective advantage. Without simultaneous modifications, the functionality of the foot would be severely compromised. The foot could not evolve step-by-step without losing function at intermediary stages as such, rendering these hypothetical transitional forms non-viable and hindering rather than enhancing survival, directly contradicting the principles of natural selection.

The evolutionary model fails to account for the interdependent changes necessary to produce a bipedal foot from a quadrupedal one, as no single mutation pathway could plausibly coordinate all necessary adaptations. The depiction of human evolution as an inevitable, linear process reflects biased ideology rather than empirical data. This visual narrative often serves as a tool to propagate a worldview, presenting assumptions as fact despite significant gaps in evidence. The fossil record does not support the certainty implied by this imagery, and the complexity of systems like the human foot raises substantial doubts about the gradualist model. By prioritizing dogma over evidence, this approach undermines scientific objectivity and reduces the discussion to propaganda rather than rigorous inquiry.

Furthermore, many evolutionary claims rely on circular reasoning. Fossils are often classified as precursors to humans based on traits assumed to represent evolutionary transitions, and these classifications are then used to support the evolutionary model itself. This speculative approach lacks scientific rigor and fails to provide objective evidence for the gradual evolution of the human foot.

A Response to “Bad Design” Arguments

Some evolutionary critics like Nathan Lents argue that the foot is poorly designed. These critics assert that a single fused bone could suffice above the ankle.²⁵ Burgess counters these claims by addressing the importance of the fibula.²⁶ He explains that the fibula contributes to ankle stability through a multi-bar linkage system, increases the mechanical advantage of muscles acting on the ankle-foot complex, and expands the attachment area for muscles, enabling greater force generation. These features allow for superior mechanical performance compared to a simpler, fused structure.

Critics who claim the ankle-foot complex is an example of “bad design” often point to its susceptibility to sprains and injuries. Burgess refutes this by drawing an analogy to modern cars: even well-engineered systems can fail when subjected to neglect, overuse, or age. Similarly, issues with the ankle-foot complex often stem from misuse or health problems rather than flaws in its design. He concludes that the foot incorporates highly specialized features, surpassing human-engineered joints in complexity and sophistication. Claims of poor design, he argues, lack scientific foundation, and engineering principles affirm the seamless relationship between the foot’s form and function.²⁷

The Foot: A Testament To Sophisticated Design

While humans and primates share some basic anatomical components in the foot (e.g., plantar fascia, Achilles tendon, tarsal bones), their development and function are vastly different. The human foot’s features demonstrate a highly specialized design for bipedal locomotion, whereas the primate foot remains optimized for climbing and grasping. The lack of transitional forms with partially developed human features, such as rigid arches or aligned big toes, highlights the challenge of explaining the evolutionary shift from primate to human foot anatomy through gradual changes. These differences support the argument for an intentional and immediate design rather than a long evolutionary process.

The intricacy and specialization of the human foot align more logically with the concept of instantaneous creation. The necessity for fully formed functionality suggests an origin marked by intentional completeness. Additionally, the ability of the human foot to balance stability and adaptability also reflects principles of optimal design. Engineers frequently face similar challenges when creating systems that require both strength and flexibility, such as suspension bridges or robotic limbs. The foot’s sophisticated integration of rigidity and flexibility mirrors this intentional problem-solving approach, suggesting purposeful design.

Furthermore, its precision and integration go far beyond what is necessary for basic survival, reflecting purposeful over-design. Not only does the foot enable actions like endurance running but it also makes more innovative activities, such as dancing and gymnastics, possible.

Conclusion: A Masterpiece of Creation

The absence of transitional forms, the functional impossibility of intermediates, and the sophistication of the foot’s systems collectively point to a purposeful creation. The intricate design of the human foot stands as a testament to the wisdom and intentionality of its Creator. Every component, from the arches to the tendons, muscles, and proprioceptive systems, works in perfect harmony to achieve the complex balance of strength, flexibility, and adaptability. Its complexity and efficiency highlight God’s power and wisdom, as also proclaimed in Job 12:10: “In His hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.” This design is not the product of randomness or chance but reflects the purposeful craftsmanship of God, Who, as declared in Genesis, created fully formed and functional beings, both human and primate, according to their kinds.

The human foot not only fulfills its role in locomotion but also equips humans for a wide range of creative activities. The human foot exemplifies the profound truth found in Psalm 139:14: “I will praise You for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well.” The beauty and functionality of the human foot remind us that God’s creation reflects His glory and His order, as Genesis 1:31 states, “God saw all that He had made, and it was very good.” The human foot is more than a biomechanical structure—it is a masterpiece, echoing the intentional design of a God Who creates with both precision and love.

Endnotes

¹ The “March of Progress” illustration, officially titled “The Road to Homo Sapiens,” appears in the 1965 book Early Man by F. Clark Howell, part of the Life Nature Library series. The foldout illustration spans pages 41 to 45 and was created by artist Rudolph Zallinger.

² Bipedalism (bipedal [adj]) refers to the ability to walk, run, or move on two legs in an upright position. Quadrupeds are animals that walk on four legs.

³ Nathan H. Lents (2018), Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt), pp. 28-29.

⁴ Stuart Burgess (2022), “Why the Ankle-Foot Complex Is a Masterpiece of Engineering and a Rebuttal of ‘Bad Design’ Arguments,” BIO-complexity, p. 2.

⁵ Ibid., p. 5.

⁶ R.F. Ker, et al. (1987), “The Spring in the Arch of the Human Foot,” Nature, 325:147-149.

⁷ The stance phase of gait is the part of the walking cycle where the foot remains in contact with the ground, providing support and stability. It begins with heel strike, progresses through midstance as the body moves over the supporting foot, and ends with toe-off as the foot propels the body forward. This phase accounts for approximately 60% of the gait cycle.

⁸ Proprioceptive refers to the body’s ability to sense its position, movement, and orientation in space. It involves specialized sensory receptors, called proprioceptors, located in the muscles, tendons, and joints, which provide feedback to the brain about body alignment and motion.

⁹ Burgess, p. 9.

¹⁰ The arches stiffen as the plantar aponeurosis and intrinsic foot muscles tighten, creating a rigid structure capable of withstanding high forces. Simultaneously, the toes dorsiflex, engaging the windlass mechanism and further reinforcing the medial longitudinal arch to optimize energy transfer. The calcaneus, talus, and metatarsals align to form a stable platform for effective propulsion.

¹¹ The talus and calcaneus provide a range of motion that allows the foot to conform to irregular surfaces, while ligaments such as the deltoid and lateral collateral ligaments stabilize the joints during movement. Dynamic proprioception, mediated by sensors in the skin, joints, and muscles, provides real-time feedback to the brain, enabling micro-adjustments to maintain balance.

¹² M.J. Behe (1996), Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press).

¹³ Charles Darwin (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray), p. 189.

¹⁴ Unlike manmade arches, which support the static weight of buildings, the human foot is uniquely designed with three distinct arches capable of bearing and adapting to the shifting weight of a moving body.

¹⁵ K. Kulig, et al. (2009), “The Role of Flexor Hallucis Longus in Forefoot Stability During Walking,” Foot & Ankle International, 30[10]:995-1000.

¹⁶ The windlass mechanism, first described by Hicks, highlights how the plantar fascia tightens during toe dorsiflexion. This action elevates the medial arch and enables efficient propulsion. Without this mechanism, locomotion efficiency significantly decreases, demonstrating the critical role of structural integration within the foot. See J.H. Hicks (1954), “The Mechanics of the Foot. II. The Plantar Aponeurosis and the Arch,” Journal of Anatomy, 88:25-30.

¹⁷ N. Matsusaka, et al. (2019), “The Biomechanical Impact of Great Toe Amputation,” Journal of Biomechanics, 82:131-138.

¹⁸ Arboreal refers to something that is related to or suited for life in trees. It is commonly used to describe animals, adaptations, or behaviors that are specialized for living, climbing, or moving in trees.

¹⁹ Nicholas B. Holowka, Matthew C. O’Neill, Nathan E. Thompson, and Brigitte Demes (2017), “Chimpanzee and Human Midfoot Motion During Bipedal Walking and the Evolution of the Longitudinal Arch of the Foot,” Journal of Human Evolution, 104:29.

²⁰ The jury is still out on where Homo naledi fits.

²¹ Stephen Jay Gould (1980), The Panda’s Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton), p. 181. For more information on human evolution and the fossil record, see Jeff Miller (2023), “Does the Evidence Really Support Human Evolution—Parts 1 & 2,” Reason & Revelation, August-September, 33[8-9]:86-89,92-93,98-101, https://apologeticspress.org/does-the-evidence-really-support-human-evolution-part-i/.

²² J.R. True and S.B. Carroll (2002), “Gene Co-option in Physiological and Morphological Evolution,” Annual Review of Cell Developmental Biology, 18:53-80; D.A. McLennan (2008), “The Concept of Co-option: Why Evolution Often Looks Miraculous,” Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1[3]:247-258.

²³ The concept of co-option is an entirely speculative idea, lacking any grounding in evidence and failing to hold up under even minimal analytical examination. There is no substantial proof that such a process ever occurred or that it is even plausible. Perhaps most strikingly, it demands an unquestioning belief in what appears to be an extraordinary and improbable event. The irony is profound. This unfounded notion is often promoted as science while the logical and straightforward conclusion of design is dismissed as pseudoscience. In reality, the situation is exactly the opposite.

²⁴ See Jeff Miller (2014), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution—Parts 1 & 2,” Reason & Revelation, January-February, 34[1-2]:2-5,8-10,14-17,20-21, https://apologeticspress.org/god-and-the-laws-of-science-genetics-vs-evolution-part-1-4779/.

²⁵ Lents, pp. 28-29.

²⁶ Burgess, p. 2.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 8.

---

Published May 1, 2026